Carl v. West Aberdeen Land & Improvement Co.

Citations

• 13 Wash. 616
• 43 P. 890
• 1896 Wash. LEXIS 99

Syllabus

<p>NUISANCE — OBSTRUCTION OF NAVIGABLE STREAM—EQUITABLE JURISDICTION— ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE—DECREE — BOOM COMPANIES.</p> <p>The fact that the remedy provided by Code Proe., §§ 664, 665, for the abatement of a nuisance is an action at law, will not preclude the court from granting equitable relief, in a proceeding therefor, when a suit at law for the abatement of the nuisance would prove entirely inadequate.</p> <p>Although the obstruction of a navigable stream may be a public nuisance, yet a private action may be maintained for its removal, when plaintiffs have a special private interest in having the obstruction removed so that they can float their logs down the stream.</p> <p>The fact that the court mistakenly admitted evidence competent only in a suit at law for the abatement of a nuisance, will not deprive plaintiffs of a right to equitable relief, where the pleadings and proofs are sufficient to warrant the granting of such relief.</p> <p>Boom companies organized under Laws 1895, p. 128, have no right to interfere with the navigation or use of the streams upon which they have constructed booms.</p> <p>A decree granting equitable relief in a petition for a mandatory injunction against a nuisance, which impliedly goes farther and adjudges the abatement of the nuisance, should be interpreted in the light of the findings made by the court, in which it has decided that it is not within its province, in the action brought, to determine whether or not an obstruction should be abated as a nuisance.</p>